This essay contends that the digital debates over Islamophobia show a curious resemblance to preexisting American folk theories of racism. The outcry surrounding the reality show All-American Muslim is the case study, but the argument applies to a broader development of cultural racism and Islamophobia in American society. Starting from a discussion of the politics of racialization and 'post-civil rights' racism in the USA, the article outlines the mediation of racial politics through reality television and online commenting in relation to Islamophobia. Finally, appropriating the work of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and Jane Hill on the underlying theories of American racism, I examine two seemingly opposing discourses entailed in the AAM controversy, and demonstrate that the entire online outcry has closely followed the old paradigms through which Americans talk about racism.

In the midst of recent European activism against religious slaughter, the idea that religious slaughter is cruel to animals is often seen as commonsense, and the mandatory pre-slaughter stunning is often portrayed as the moral technology that assures animal welfare. Nevertheless, this portrayal seems to blur the fact that the current notion of animal welfare itself is built upon a changing selection of value assumptions, which are not without problems or academic debates. It also ignores the fact that contemporary veterinary scientists and Muslim scholars have been working together for four decades to learn more about farm animals and their suffering. Despite stereotypes, the idea of animal ethics is not foreign to Islam. In Islam, animals represent God's wisdom and wonder, and humans are obliged to attend to their health and living conditions. When killing animals for food is conducted, the slaughter must be done in the name of God as a sacred ritual in order to assure that the life of the animal is not taken lightly and that the slaughter is not a sign of hostility toward the universe. Before the act of sacrifice, the animal must be healthy, and no harm should be forced upon it. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-slaughter stunning has posed a question to Muslim scholars: Does stunning kill the animal or cause harm? What defines harm, and whose definition counts? This paper reconstructs a socio-technological history of halal slaughter through scientific research on animal suffering since the 1980s. On the basis of archival research of New Zealand veterinary scientists' works and in-depth interviews with Malaysian veterinary scientists, this article outlines three phases of the evolution of halal slaughter that aims to fulfill multiple sets of moral obligations toward farm animals, and demonstrates how veterinary scientists establish common ground between secular and Islamic animal ethics. In this vein, I am envisioning a possibility of veterinary anthropology that recognizes the field's trans-cultural characteristics, and continues to challenge the rigid binaries between the West and the Rest, and between science and culture.

No abstract

No abstract

This article proposes a specific kind of ontological investigation in the field of science and religion. I argue that science and religion can create distinct practices that enact multiple realities, and thus they should be seen as more than different views of the same world. By analyzing the details of scientific experiments crucial for the invention of halal stunning, I demonstrate that religion and science are both permeable to the social, the biological, and to each other, and that seemingly incommensurable realities can co‐occur in the body of an animal. Here, animals’ modes of existence are interdependent with the technologies being used, and with the web of interactions that they are drawn into. In the process of inventing halal stunning, it is not so much about the same animal body that is thought about differently as it is about animals spanning across multiple, physiological, realities as they are recruited into different webs of interactions to create a new slaughter method.